D-

F

Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end.

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that the Holmes movies are quite close, content-wise, to the original source. Closer, in fact, than anything I've seen on screen before. A bit OT, of course.

In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.

In most political discussion, there are good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But in "STID," the bad guys are for increased military action to protect the Federation. The good guys are for just being explorers. This is too simplistic for a thorough discussion of how to keep civilization safe in the face of unimaginable threats. The story shouldn't try to answer the question. There is no easy answer. All of the points should be presented. Let the viewer decide where and why they stand on a particular side, and consider the issue from a new perspective. My favorite movies of last year, "Life of Pi," "Sound of My Voice," and "Cabin in the Woods," held up a mirror to the audience, so we could ask why do we believe what we want to believe, or why do we enjoy the things we do? It's good that this movie tried to be about something more than just blowing stuff up real good. Next time, take another step toward a more complete, less preachy look at real world issues. Yeah, I know, Trek has been traditionally preachy. But this is a new world.

Click to expand...

Very well-said.

Click to expand...

Admittedly, one reason I like the Section 31 concept is the challenge it provides to the main idealist and rather utopian tendencies of Star Trek.

DS9 was very good at that kind of thing. Here the idea is introduced and dismissed a bit lightly, it's another one of those aspects of the movie that has more impact if you already get the reference. Otherwise it's just the Evil Admiral trying to start a war.

Ultimately the movie doesn't come down on the side of inaction, but on what it perceives to be the more humane and ethical action.

I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.

Click to expand...

Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA

Click to expand...

To me the bigger question is, if they were so worried about the Enterprise being seen by the natives, why did they park it underwater in the FIRST place-- and so freakin close to their temple??

Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Now we've got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies which are just Sherlock flavored action movies, and Star Trek flavored action movies -but they're all just Hollywood action movies in the end.

Click to expand...

Yeah, except that the Holmes movies are quite close, content-wise, to the original source. Closer, in fact, than anything I've seen on screen before. A bit OT, of course.

Click to expand...

Well the transwarp transporter was a secret weapon developed by Khan, only a few people including Scotty would really know the concept behind it and it was not widely available. Perhaps it was even a prototype or held in reserve by Khan himself unknown to Starfleet.

The Sherlock Holmes movies bear little resemblance to Sherlock to me, though that's not a deal breaker exactly. BBC's Sherlock show is quite different but way better than the movies.

I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.

Click to expand...

Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA

Click to expand...

To me the bigger question is, if they were so worried about the Enterprise being seen by the natives, why did they park it underwater in the FIRST place-- and so freakin close to their temple??

Have they never heard of "standard orbit" in this universe?

Click to expand...

My only guess is that it was easier to hide the shuttle close to the surface rather than from higher in the atmosphere, minimizing how often they could to be seen in the sky. Or maybe Kirk had it in his head already as an emergency way to rescue Spock or anyone on the mission if there was a problem...contrary to Spock's objections.

Well the transwarp transporter was a secret weapon developed by Khan, only a few people including Scotty would really know the concept behind it and it was not widely available.

Click to expand...

Transwarp beaming was a concept developped by Prime.Scotty in the future and told to Alt.Scotty by Prime.Spock. Section 31 just appropriated it and Khan used it.

Click to expand...

Yes but the actual equipment was Khan's. The technique was Scotty's but the small ship version was likely Khan's, developed under Section 31...again, not widely availabe, very secret and not used day to day.

The question is why they weren't able to beam Spock out of the volcano.

nuScotty reprogrammed a shuttle's transporter for transwarp beaming, and he probably used it to beam nuKirk and nuSpock aboard the Narada, yet he DIDN'T keep the algorithm in the Enterprise's transporter systems?

But who am I to look for logic in a script where a space ship hides under water for no reason and cannot withstand the heat of a volcanic eruption, which is minimal compared to what a ship like the Enterprise would need to endure when it, for example, enters the atmosphere of a planet to hide under water.

The question is why they weren't able to beam Spock out of the volcano.

nuScotty reprogrammed a shuttle's transporter for transwarp beaming, and he probably used it to beam nuKirk and nuSpock aboard the Narada, yet he DIDN'T keep the algorithm in the Enterprise's transporter systems?

But who am I to look for logic in a script where a space ship hides under water for no reason and cannot withstand the heat of a volcanic eruption, which is minimal compared to what a ship like the Enterprise would need to endure when it, for example, enters the atmosphere of a planet to hide under water.

Click to expand...

Its been pointed out that it wouldn't have trouble with heat but ejecta is a different story. So they got one word wrong. They also changed hypernova to supernova in ST09 so as to not confuse audiences, though hypernovas still wouldn't destroy the universe...

Perhaps like ST:Enterprise, transwarp beaming is too dodgy in it's early stages to adopt. Maybe a few decades hence that wouldn't be the case, but it still is here. Remember Scotty lost a certain prized beagle, so how often has it been successful up till then?

I just bought the novelization hoping it makes the Nibiru mission make sense. It is really the only part of the film that I can't make work in my head.

Click to expand...

Bob Orci did explain that on Trekmovie, but it's still open to question. The volcano interfered with their transporter lock unless it was line of sight. Apparently between motion and natural disasters, this timeline's transporters are quite finicky.

Also I gathered from Spock's line "that the planet will die" meant the small groups of inhabitants were all near the volcano, not that the planet itself would be destroyed.

RAMA

Click to expand...

To me the bigger question is, if they were so worried about the Enterprise being seen by the natives, why did they park it underwater in the FIRST place-- and so freakin close to their temple??

Have they never heard of "standard orbit" in this universe?

Click to expand...

They never really explained why they had to bring the Enterprise down to the planet. Was the volcano's ash screwing up the atmosphere so no transporter activity could take place between orbit and the surface? It looked like Kirk and McCoy were going to use the shuttle to escape in as well. It was still cool to see the Enterprise rise out of the water. Very Space Battleship Yamato. The diving suits reminded me of TMP uniforms, I guess it was their color.
-Chris

Okay, I haven't heard anyone else mention this yet, but after Pike is killed, the sound of the sirens coming from the "police" ships sounds a lot like the original "red alert" sound from The Cage. Incredibly subtle audio homage, or am I just crazy?

Okay, I haven't heard anyone else mention this yet, but after Pike is killed, the sound of the sirens coming from the "police" ships sounds a lot like the original "red alert" sound from The Cage. Incredibly subtle audio homage, or am I just crazy?

Click to expand...

I'll have to listen for that when I see it again There were tons of audio references in the film, a lot of the background noises in the brig, and sickbay were all from the series. I also like they use the sing/song like noises for the keypads, etc. The communicator chirps and call alert, etc. I am glad the phasers didn't sound too much like the Naboo pistols from Phantom Menace this time around.

I watched Star Trek - The Search for Spock this evening. I can see the new characters getting to this point. I am glad that they gave the new actors / writers a lot of room to show the characters develop into what we know they can become. Pine does put some "shatner" in his performance as Kirk from time to time. I'm looking forward to the nuTrek 3. I just want it to break the villain vs the enterprise pattern the movies have taken. I would like to see them visit a planet and something happens..lol